NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 2861 - 2870 of 16518

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam2746 Open Mr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your December 8, 1977, letter asking for a interpretation of the term 'passenger compartment' as used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; Standard No. 217 requires that a school bus side emergency door b located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. The NHTSA interprets the term 'passenger compartment' to mean the area from the windshield to the back of the bus.; In a companion question, you ask whether it would be permissible for small portion of a side emergency door, installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b), to fall within the front half of a bus as long as most of the door is within the required rear half of the passenger compartment. The answer to your question is no. The emergency door must be totally located within the rear half of the passenger compartment.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5083 Open Donald G. McGuigan, Esq. Ford Motor Company Office of the General Counsel Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East One Parklane Boulevard Dearborn, MI 48126-2493; Donald G. McGuigan Esq. Ford Motor Company Office of the General Counsel Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East One Parklane Boulevard Dearborn MI 48126-2493; "Dear Mr. McGuigan: This responds to your letter of September 29, 199 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states: S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than 'park,' i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be 'inappropriate,' because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard. We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in 'park' as a direct result of removing the key. Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in 'park' as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit. You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key-locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the 'park' detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is 'held short of engaging the Park positioning detent.' We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam5129 Open Mr. Nilton Mello Vitrotec - Vidros De Seguranca Ltda Rua Jacofer, 350 CEP 02712 Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mr. Nilton Mello Vitrotec - Vidros De Seguranca Ltda Rua Jacofer 350 CEP 02712 Sao Paulo Brazil; "Dear Mr. Mello: This responds to your inquiry about the exportation o your laminated motor vehicle windshields into the United States. According to your letter, you have already designated an agent in this country and have received your DOT number. You asked whether you are required to perform tests at an American laboratory before you can export your product into the United States. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products is also subject to civil penalties. In response to your question about whether you are required to perform tests at an American laboratory, the answer is no. As indicated above, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. You are not required to use the services of an American laboratory in conducting tests associated with certification. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam2316 Open Governor Raymond P. Shafer, Counselor to the Vice President; Governor Raymond P. Shafer Counselor to the Vice President; SUBJECT: Letter to the Vice President from Mr. James A. Graham President, General Industrial Group, Gulf + Western Manufacturing Company; Attached is a suggested draft reply to Mr. James A. Graham's letter o April 30, 1976, to the Vice President concerning a petition for reconsideration of the Part 581 - bumper standard.; James B. Gregory, Administrator Department of Transportation, Suggested Reply Dear Mr. Graham: This is in response to your letter of April 30, 1976, concerning Gulf Western's petition for reconsideration of the recently issued Part 581 bumper standard.; It is the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue a notice of action taken on petitions for reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. Several manufacturers, including Gulf + Western, have filed petitions for reconsideration of the standard in conformance with NHTSA rulemaking procedures (40 CFR 553.35). Since the agency is currently in the process of considering the petitions received, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time on the remarks made in your letter.; The NHTSA will give full and thorough consideration to the comments an information submitted by Gulf + Western and the other petitioners. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the Federal Register.; Sincerely,
ID: aiam3911 Open Mr. M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimizu- shi, Shizuoka-ken, Japan; Mr. M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu- shi Shizuoka-ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1985, with reference t the compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of a proposed motorcycle headlamp design.; In the design shown in your letter a single housing would contain tw dual-filament bulbs, each with an independently aimed reflector. You have stated that the headlamp can comply with the photometric requirements of SAE J584 when either compartment is lit, and that the assembly will meet all other requirements of J584.; A dual bulb arrangement in a single housing is considered a singl headlamp, and therefore its compliance will be judged when both compartments are lit to provide either the upper or lower beam. Assuming that when both compartments are lit the combined candlepower at individual test points does not exceed the maxima imposed by J584 for those test points, your design appears to comply with Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2603 Open Mr. R. G. Wilkins, Product Safety & Reliability Analyst, Grove Manufacturing Company, Shady Grove, PA 17256; Mr. R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst Grove Manufacturing Company Shady Grove PA 17256; Dear Mr. Wilkins: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.; Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels i governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers (sic) seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5596 Open Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico; Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico; "Dear Mr. Rios: This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, t Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120. You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs. On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995. We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as 'covered equipment,' such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam2253 Open Mr. Alvin L. Slayton, Product Reliability Department, American Bosch Electrical Products, P. O. Box 2228, Columbus, MS 39701; Mr. Alvin L. Slayton Product Reliability Department American Bosch Electrical Products P. O. Box 2228 Columbus MS 39701; Dear Mr. Slayton:#This responds to your February 23, 1976, questio whether Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, still references SAE J903a as it did in 1969, and whether a future reference to SAE J903b or SAE J903c is anticipated.#The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no. A proposed change in Standard No. 104 would be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons would be given an opportunity to comment.#Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam1886 Open Mr. J.E. Kuykendall, Director - Parts Sales, Cummins Sales & Service Inc., 600 Watson Road, P.O. Box 1008, Arlington, Texas 76010; Mr. J.E. Kuykendall Director - Parts Sales Cummins Sales & Service Inc. 600 Watson Road P.O. Box 1008 Arlington Texas 76010; Dear Mr. Kuykendall: #This responds to your letter of March 25, 1975 to Mr. Francis Armstrong of this agency, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses, as applied to brake hose assemblies. #The labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies became effective on March 1, 1975. On March 4, the NHTSA proposed a change in the definition of 'brake hose assembly' which would exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 F.R. 8962, copy enclosed.) Notice of a final decision on this proposal will be published in the Federal Register. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam0794 Open Mr. Melvin Aanerud, Manager, Mille Lacs Reservation Business Enterprise, Star Route, Vineland, MN 56359; Mr. Melvin Aanerud Manager Mille Lacs Reservation Business Enterprise Star Route Vineland MN 56359; Dear Mr. Aanerud: This is in reply to your letter of July 20 to the Department o Transportation concerning your 'pulsating safety brakelite.'; The performance of your device will be considered as a potentia required or optional feature during future amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.'; Thank you for your interest in highway safety. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;